SJ is not the “AI” portrayed in the movie her. And AFAIK she does not in fact have all the same idiosyncrasies and tones in real life as the voice does in the movie because she was in fact directed to act like that.
Not only that but the voices are not the same because there was another actress for sky as we have seen.
To me It seems as if the case for SJ is DOA unless it comes out somehow that they in fact trained on her voice specifically. But since that doesn’t seem like the case I have no idea how SJ can legally own all voices that sound like hers.
It would obviously be a different story if OpenAI were saying that sky was SJ but that’s not the case. To me the question should be is “can the studio own the character in her that openAI was copying and any similar things”. Which given that systems like SIRI were already out there in the world when the movie came out and we knew this tech was on the way. The answer should be no but IANAL.
I’m not a huge fan of OpenAI anymore and I think they deserve criticism for many things. But this situation isn’t one of them.
Clarification: Of course if it turns out that they in fact trained on SJ or altered the voice to be more like hers then I’d think differently. I still think the studio has more of a claim though look from the outside and not being a lawyer.
Edit: clarification
How is a tweet from the CEO not an official statement?
but yes, even a personal statement may have some value in a case, but you ignored the second part of the GP's criticism.
you're reaching that the tweet of the poster of "Her" meant "hey guys, this is voiced by SJ"
it simply could mean that "hey guys, it sounds as good as the voice assistant from Her"
it is voice assistant software after all...
mind reading a tweet does not make a good case, especially with the timeline noted in TFA.
Wat.
> mind reading a tweet
He says the name of the movie! We don’t need to know his state of mind, just the promotional effect.